CONCEPTUALISATION IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN...
60
CONCEPTUALISATION IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS AT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA FATIMAH BINTI MOHAMAD AD! A thesis submitted in fulfiltnent of the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture) Faculty of Built Environment Universiti Teknologi Malaysia FEBRUARY 2017
Transcript of CONCEPTUALISATION IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN...
CONCEPTUALISATION IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS AT
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
FATIMAH BINTI MOHAMAD AD!
A thesis submitted in fulfiltnent of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture)
Faculty of Built Environment
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
FEBRUARY 2017
iii
To our prophet, Muhammad s.a.w, the messenger of Truth,
To my dears father, mother, husband, sons, Mother-in-law, Father-in-law,
siblings and in-laws
To my both supervisors, Prof. Madya Dr. Ismail bin Said and Dr. Khairul Anwar bin
Mohammed Khaidzir
And to all who supported me in my study
Thank you for your endless loves, prayers and supports for this lifetime journey and
experiences. A PhD journey, indeed, a wonderful experience for me and
opportunities to meet great people and built beautiful friendships.
Thank you ALLAH for a blessing path. Alhamdulillah!!!
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with many people, researchers,
academicians, and practitioners. They have contributed towards my understanding
and thoughts. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my main
thesis supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr Ismail Said, for encouragement, guidance, critics
and friendship. You are truly one in a million. I am also very thankful to my co-
supervisor Dr Khairul Anwar Mohamed Khaidzir, a great sifu of design cognition,
for his guidance, advice and motivation. Without their continued support and
interest, this thesis would not have been the same as presented here. Not to forget, I
also like to thank you both of my examiners, Assoc. Prof. Dr Dilshan Remaz Ossen
and Dr Noor Hanita Abdul Majid.
I am also indebted to Ministry of Education Malaysia for funding my PhD
study. Staff of MyBrain15, librarians at UTM, and architecture staff at the Faculty of
Built Environment, UTM especially to Dr Alice and Dr Lim Yoong Loong, who also
deserve special thanks for their assistance in supplying the relevant literatures and
needs.
My fellow postgraduate students should also be recognised for their support.
My sincere appreciation also extends to all my colleagues in Greenovation research
group, in FAB especially to Adila, Fadzila and Jannatun for lodging, EE’s friends for countless calls and tears, and others who have provided assistance on various
occasions. Special thank you dedicated to all third-year architecture students of
semester 2014/2015, especially to Izz, Joe, Tan, Lai, Azri, Zahidah, Mel, Ken,
Harith, Nafis, Azuan and Yusra for their cooperation and sincere thoughts that
shaped the study. Their views and tips are useful indeed. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to list all of them in this limited space.
I am grateful to all my family members. Thank you dedicated to my beloved
husband, Hudzaifah, my parents; Mak, Ayah, Ibu, siblings and in-laws for the
countless motivations and supports. Also, for my beloved sons Thoriq and Fateh,
your existence are truly my strength.
Thank you very much, and Alhamdulillah.
ii ii iv
1
ABSTRACT
This research investigates conceptualisation as a process of giving meaning to
a design problem in a bachelor of architecture program. As design always starts with
vague and half-formed ideas, sketching is conducted to clarify the ideas and to
generate new ones. Thus, sketching allows for student’s reasoning of design through
problem solving and critical thinking. However, in the reality of studio learning the
student’s capability in thinking about design is shallow and uncertain. This occurs as
resulted from an ill-defined nature of design problems as well as a failure of students
in carrying design from one stage to another. Therefore, this study aims to identify
how students conceptualise their design ideas in the design process as part of studio
learning. Three factors which are (i) framing problem, (ii) evaluating moves and (iii)
reflecting design influencing the conceptualisation process in the architecture design
studio, which deal with the reflection in action between the students and their design
process in the studio learning. Using the framework of Schon’s Reflective Learning in tackling a design problem, the research employed a case study of six third-year
architecture students of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru to understand
the conceptualisation process. The selection of the students was based on the
purposive sampling technique. Data were elicited using two methods: (1)
observations of students’ sketches and (2) description of students’ interviews on
studio reflections from three design stages of the initial design, refinement design
and the final stage of the architectural drawing software. Data were analysed using
content analysis by segmenting and coding of the raw data of the students’ sketches.
A total of 191 sketches were identified in the study that involved ten design
activities. The research reveals that 36.6% of the students’ sketches were produced
during the initial design stage, 45.5% of the sketches during the refinement design
stage, and 17.8% of the sketches during the final stage. The finding suggests that the
differences in students’ sketches were constructed from the logical relationships of
the design elements, analytical strategies and creative thoughts of the students.
Students also exercised four methods in developing their understanding in design; (i)
revising precedents, (ii) visualising images, (iii) form-making design, and (iv)
developing space planning. Consistently, through segmentation of entities and
making order of sketches, the research suggests that the conceptualisation process
has aided the students’ thinking in identifying and evolving design ideas. Overall, the
study emphasises that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia architecture students reasoning
about design is influenced by many aspects as it involves the adaptation of
metaphors, analogies, precedents, self-preferences of the preferred events, functions,
forms and meanings.
ii ii v
2
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini mengkaji pembangunan konsep sebagai proses yang memberikan
makna kepada pemindahan masalah reka bentuk dalam program sarjana muda seni
bina. Proses mereka bentuk selalunya bermula secara tidak jelas dan bersifat tidak
lengkap, dengan itu lakaran diperlukan untuk memperincikan idea dan menjana idea
baru. Dengan itu, lakaran membolehkan pelajar mereka bentuk melalui penyelesaian
masalah dan pemikiran kritikal. Walau bagaimanapun, dalam realiti pembelajaran
studio, keupayaan pelajar dalam membangunkan konsep adalah cetek dan tidak
menentu. Ini berlaku hasil daripada permasalahan reka bentuk yang bersifat tidak
jelas serta kegagalan pelajar dalam mereka bentuk dari satu peringkat ke peringkat
yang lain. Oleh itu, kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengenal pasti bagaimana pelajar
membangunkan konsep dalam proses mereka bentuk sebagai sebahagian dari
pembelajaran studio. Adalah didapati tiga faktor iaitu (i) merangka permasalahan, (ii)
mengatur gerak kerja dan (iii) menilai reka bentuk mempengaruhi proses
pembangunan konsep dalam studio reka bentuk seni bina, yang melibatkan tindakan
refleksi di antara pelajar dengan proses mereka bentuk dalam pembelajaran studio.
Menggunakan kerangka Schon iaitu pembelajaran reflektif dalam menangani
masalah mereka bentuk, penyelidikan ini melibatkan kajian kes terhadap enam
pelajar senibina tahun ketiga di Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru untuk
memahami proses pembentukan konsep. Pemilihan pelajar adalah berdasarkan teknik
persampelan bertujuan. Data telah diambil menggunakan dua kaedah: (1)
pemerhatian terhadap lakaran pelajar dan (2) temubual pelajar mengenai refleksi
aktiviti mereka bentuk dari tiga peringkat mereka bentuk iaitu reka bentuk awal,
pembaikan reka bentuk dan peringkat akhir perisian lukisan seni bina. Data dianalisis
dengan menggunakan analisis kandungan dengan membahagikan dan pengekodan
data mentah lakaran pelajar. Sebanyak 191 lakaran telah dikenal pasti yang
melibatkan sepuluh aktiviti mereka bentuk. Kajian mendapati bahawa 36.6%
daripada lakaran pelajar telah dihasilkan semasa peringkat awal, 45.5% lakaran
dihasilkan semasa peringkat pembaikan mereka bentuk, dan 17.8% adalah di
peringkat akhir. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa perbezaan dalam lakaran
pelajar adalah berdasarkan dari hubungan logik daripada elemen-elemen reka bentuk,
strategi analisis dan pemikiran kreatif pelajar. Pelajar juga menggunakan empat
kaedah dalam membangunkan pemahaman dalam mereka bentuk; (i) menyemak
contoh projek, (ii) menggambarkan imej, (iii) membangunkan reka bentuk, dan (iv)
membangunkan perancangan reruang. Secara konsisten, melalui pengelasan entiti
dan menyusun atur lakaran, kajian menunjukkan bahawa proses pembangunan
konsep telah membantu pemikiran pelajar dalam mengenal pasti dan
mengembangkan idea rekabentuk. Keseluruhannya, kajian ini menekankan bahawa
pembangunan konsep oleh pelajar senibina Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
dipengaruhi oleh banyak aspek yang melibatkan penyesuaian metafora, analogi,
contoh projek, kecenderungan kepada pilihan situasi, fungsi, bentuk dan pengertian.
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxi
LIST OF TERMINOLOGIES xxii
LIST OF APPENDICES xxiv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.2.1 The Need to Study Conceptualisation in the Local
Context
6
1.3 Research Gap 9
1.4 Research Aim 13
1.5 Research Objectives 13
vii
viii
1.6 Research Questions 13
1.7 Scope and Variables of the Study 15
1.8 Significance of Study 17
1.9 Outline of Research Methodology 17
1.8.1 Stage 1: Literature Review of Architecture Studies 18
1.8.2 Stage 2: Synthesis of Theoretical Backgrounds 19
1.8.3 Stage 3: Synthesis of Architecture Programme in
Malaysia and UTM
19
1.8.4 Stage 4: Data Collection and Methodology 20
1.8.5 Stage 5: Triangulation of Data Analysis 20
1.8.6 Stage 6: Conclusion of the Study 20
1.9 Outline of Thesis Content 21
2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS 24
2.1 Introduction 24
2.2 Theoretical Backgrounds related to Conceptualisation 25
2.2.1 Reflective Learning Theory (RLT) 25
2.2.2 Framework of Episodic Memories in Design 27
2.2.3 Summary of Theories that Form Conceptualisation 29
2.3 Fundamental of Architectural Cognition 31
2.3.1 Analytical Reasoning and Logic: A Synthesis
Knowledge
33
2.3.2 Intuitive and Imagination: A Creative Thought 34
2.3.3 Summary of Architectural Components 36
2.4 Role and Importance of Sketches 38
2.4.1 Applied Taxonomy of Sketches 40
2.4.2 Interpretation of Sketches 46
ix
2.5 Iteration in Design 48
2.5.1 Definition 48
2.5.2 Types of Iteration 51
2.6 Conclusion 55
3 ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA 56
3.1 Introduction 56
3.2 Architectural Education in Malaysia 57
3.3 Enrolment in Architectural Programme in Malaysia 58
3.4 Distribution of Architectural Programmes 60
3.5 Architectural Programme in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 62
3.5.1 Design Project of Semester 1, Session 2014/2015 65
3.6 Conclusion 67
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 68
4.1 Introduction 68
4.2 Qualitative Case Study Approach as a Research Design 70
4.2.1 Comparative Studies on Research using Case Study 72
4.3 Sampling Technique in Qualitative Research 74
4.3.1 Purposive Sampling 76
4.3.2 Snowball Sampling 77
4.4 Students’ Profiles of the Conceptualisation Study 79
4.4.1 Student-1: Designing a Busker Youth Centre 80
4.4.2 Student-2: Designing an Autism Centre 80
4.4.3 Student-3: Designing a Centre for the Deaf 81
4.4.4 Student-4: Designing a Traumatic Healing Centre 81
4.4.5 Student-5: Designing a Centre of Obese Children 82
x
4.4.6 Student-6: Designing a Graffiti Centre 82
4.5 Phases of Data Collection 83
4.5.1 Phase 1: Pilot Survey 86
4.5.2 Phase 2: Observations of Students’ Sketches 87
4.5.2.1 Observing Students in Studio Session 88
4.5.2.2 Sorting Task 92
4.5.3 Phase 3: Semi-structured Interviews 92
4.5.3.1 Transcription 93
4.5.3.2 Segmentation and Coding 93
4.6 Qualitative Method of Content Analysis 96
4.6.1 Method 1: Sketches and Textual Analysis 97
4.6.2 Method 2: Triangulation Analysis 98
4.7 Reliability and Validity 100
4.8 Conclusion 102
5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 103
5.1 Introduction 103
5.2 Students’ Activities in the Design Process 106
5.2.1 Synthetisation and Rewriting of the Problem
Statement
108
5.2.2 Revision and Adaptation of the Precedent Studies 113
5.2.3 Representation of Problem in Drawing Form 116
5.2.4 Assessment of the Site Analysis 120
5.2.5 Tabulation of Space Matrix 126
5.2.6 Construction of Bubble Diagram 129
5.2.7 Development of the Conceptual Sketch 133
5.2.7.1 Student-1: Design with Fluidity 138
5.2.7.2 Student-2: Analogy of Meaning 138
xi
5.2.7.3 Student-3: Reflection of Self-preference 139
5.2.7.4 Student-4: Metaphor of the Natural System 141
5.2.7.5 Student-5: Integrating Environmental Needs
of Architecture
141
5.2.7.6 Student-6: Promoting Interaction and Sense
of Belonging
142
5.2.8 Proposition of Space Planning 143
5.2.9 Construction of Freehand Perspectives 145
5.2.10 Evaluation of the Freehand Details 149
5.2.11 Conceptualisation Phase in the Design Studio 152
5.3 Differences in the Students’ Sketches 157
5.3.1 Relation of Students’ Activities to Cognitive
Segments in Design
163
5.4 Students’ Approaches in the Architectural Design Process 173
5.4.1 Factors towards the Conceptualisation of Design 177
5.4.1.1 Nature in the Space 177
5.4.1.2 Analogies 181
5.4.1.3 Personal-subjective Meaning 185
5.5 Conclusion 191
6 CONCLUSION 193
6.1 Introduction 193
6.2 Contributions of the Study 194
6.2.1 Extension on the Understanding of Conceptualisation
Process
194
6.2.2 Design Activities as Reflection in Action 194
6.2.3 The Implication of Design Stages to the Differences
of Student’s Sketches
196
6.2.4 Identification of Design Elements 198
xii
6.2.5 Framework of Conceptualisation Process of
Architectural Design
200
6.2.6 A Tool for Assessment of Design Education 205
6.2.7 Understanding of Complex Methodology in the
Architectural Study
205
6.2.8 Role of Sketches in the Design Learning Environment 205
6.2.9 Awareness of Architectural Knowledge and Design
Implications
206
6.3 Suggestions of Future Study 207
6.4 Conclusion 209
REFERENCES 210
Appendices A - B 225-228
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
1.1 Institutions that offer architectural courses in Malaysia 6
1.2 Distribution of marks according to tasks, CLOs and
PLOs for third year architecture programme, Semester
1, 2014/2015, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia
8
1.3 Percentages of students’ achievement according to course learning outcomes and design tasks
8
1.4 Theoretical gap on the architecture studies 12
1.5 The framework of research questions to aim and
objectives
14
2.1 Goel and Fish and Scrivener’s frameworks of visual representations and symbol sketches in design
42
2.2 Examples of taxonomy of sketches as highlighted by
Goel (1995)
45
2.3 Association of iteration process on sub-activities and
design process to Schon’s framework of framing problem
53
3.1 Institutions that offered the architecture programme in
Malaysia and accredited by LAM
61
3.2 Design matrix used in Faculty of Built Environment,
UTM for undergraduate architecture programme
64
3.3 Third year studio schedule for Semester 1, Cohort
2014/2015
66
4.1 Review on the previous studies using qualitative
research design
73
xiv
4.2 Students’ profiles of a case study on conceptualisation in the third year architecture design studio in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
79
4.3 Data collection of research methods and timeline 84
4.4 Variation methods of eliciting data for qualitative case
study
85
4.5 Checklist of qualitative methods for the
conceptualisation study in the third year architecture
course in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
101
5.1 The relationships of design sets, stages and activities
in the design process
107
5.2 Classification of design approaches chosen by the six
students to develop conceptual ideas in studio learning
134
5.3 Conceptual sketches and ideas produced by the six
students in the study
135
5.4 Data triangulation on phases of design process as
perceived from the students’ sketches
155
5.5 Summary of the students’ sketches according of Goel, Fish and Scrivener’s Framework
160
5.6 Classification of activities performed by students in
the design process
161
5.7 Description of four students that demonstrated
iteration in the design process of studio learning
165
5.8 Relation of three components of vision to
conceptualisation study
172
5.9 Classification of elements as perceived in the six
students’ sketches in the study
174
5.10 Classification scheme of students’ reflection on their preference in design
176
5.11 Cross-tabulation of students’ perceived elements to design themes
188
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
1.1 Framework of problem statement on the model of
student’s design process in the studio learning environment
5
1.2 Categorisation of studies on the research concerning
architectural design relating to three groups of
disciplines
9
1.3 Dependent and independent variables of student’s design process in the concetualisation study
16
1.4 Thesis objectives and structures 23
2.1 Schon’s model of reflective practice 26
2.2 Lawson’s framework of episodic memory in the form
of precedents, schemata and gambits
28
2.3 Components that are significant in framing problems
in the design process of studio learning environment
30
2.4 Framework of the intellectualisation of architectural
cognition
32
2.5 Framework of architectural cognition as perceived by
designers and students
37
2.6 Example of sketches interpretation on Cathedral of St.
John the Divine in New York illustrated by Calatrava
47
2.7 Framework of design stages in the architecture design
process that operate through the command of iterative
cycle
50
2.8 A schematic model of the iteration design in a studio
learning
54
xvi
3.1 Framework of architectural education in Malaysia 59
3.2 Framework of architectural programme offered in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
62
4.1 Flowchart of the research framework 69
4.2 Method to elicit data in the study of students
conceptualisation in the studio learning in Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia
71
4.3 Types of sampling techniques in a case study on
conceptualisation in the third year architecture design
studio in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
78
4.4 Students answered the survey questionnaires during
the studio session while waiting turns for a crit
86
4.5 Framework of data collection on students’ sketches in the studio learning that based on models’ of Fish and Scrivener and Goel
88
4.6 Observing and listening to the students’ discussion of their site inventory assessment
89
4.7 Observing the students’ desk critique of their constructed idea in a studio workbase
89
4.8 Observing a desk critique of students’ modelling of their initial concept
90
4.9 Attending and observing the students’ critique assessment on week 13
th of the semester of the six
students as well as the overall third year studio
90
4.10 Observing students’ briefing, lectures as well as their leisure time of chit-chatting and playing around in the
studio
91
4.11 Step by step model of segmentation and coding
process for the students’ conceptualisation study in the third year design studio in UTM
95
4.12 Overall content analysis designated for the
conceptualisation study
97
4.13 Framework of analytical steps for data preparation for
analysis for the conceptualisation study in the studio
learning
98
xvii
4.14 Overall data triangulation for the analysis of
conceptualisation study of the third year architecture
students in UTM
99
5.1 The structure of Chapter 5 on analysis and discussion 105
5.2 Example of Student-1’s synthesis observed in his sketchbook about the reasons of buskering and
designated programmes for the busker centre
109
5.3 Example of Student-1’s synthesis on the buskers needs as extracted from precedent and literature studies
110
5.4 Example of Student-4’s synthesis on the issue of traumatised patients in the country preceded from the
literature studies
112
5.5 Example of Student-2’s sketches in adapting the metaphor of the autism awareness ribbon from the
precedent studies (a), the conceptual design (b) and
freehand perspective (c)
113
5.6 Example of Student-3’s sketches on the adaptation of a
precedent-based design into the proposed design
114
5.7 Examples of Student-5’s sketches in identifying problems in the form of mind mapping and drawing
the user characteristics
117
5.8 Examples of Student-5’s sketches in understanding the obese children by explicating the children’s activities during indoor and outdoor play time
119
5.9 Example of sketches on synthesising site analysis
using SWOT format as generated by Student-1
121
5.10 Examples of sketches on synthesising site analysis
based on detailed aspects as generated by Student-5
122
5.11 Example of sketches on integrating the existing layout
diagram, zoning spaces and conceptual idea as
generated by Student-2
123
5.12 Theoretical concept of deafspace used by the Student-
3 in his test
124
5.13 Examples of sketches on synthesising the deafspace
concept prior to the site analysis using a box model
and shared-life experience tested by Student-3
125
xviii
5.14 Example sketch of the relationship of space in form of
matrix analysis and bubble diagrams generated by
Student-2
127
5.15 Example of space matrix analysis generated by
Student-4 that illustrates the weightage of best spaces
to be prioritised by the student in his conceptual design
128
5.16 Example of bubble diagram generated by Student-1
that emphasises interaction among the buskers
130
5.17 Bubble diagram generated by Student-3 that
emphasises on zoning spaces
131
5.18 Example of bubble diagram generated by Student-5
that is designed based on the exploration of pathway
132
5.19 Student-3’s ideation that based on curvy shape (a) that iterated into perspectives with curvy identity (b), and
transformed into final design (c)
140
5.20 Concept development of Student-6’s work on graffiti centre
142
5.21 Student-4’s sketches of spatial zoning based on
contour that is zoned into four areas (a) and adaptation
of the leaf ecological structure (b and c)
144
5.22 Examples of freehand perspectives for the busker
centre produced by Student-1
145
5.23 Examples of freehand perspectives on traumatised
centre as developed by Student-2
147
5.24 Example of sketches on freehand perspectives of an
obese children centre as produced by Student-5
148
5.25 Examples of freehand details generated by Student-1
(a) and the final design in a section detail produced
through architectural drawing software (b)
150
5.26 Example of freehand sketches for details confirming
material standards and procedures produced by
Student-4
151
5.27 Relation of the activities in the design process that
reflect Lawson’s framework on episodic memory and
Schon’s reflection in action
156
5.28 Percentage of activities performed by the students
during their design process of studio learning
162
xix
5.29 Types of student’s approaches in design process of architecture studio learning
164
5.30 Example on iteration of sketches by Student-1 on
creating initial conceptual design
167
5.31 Example of 13 iterative sketches produced by Student-
2
169
5.32 Example of iteration process produced by Student-6 in
constructing the final spatial proposition for the graffiti
centre
170
5.33 Sketches by Student-5 in described the connection
between site topography (a) to the characteristics of
the obese children (b)
178
5.34 Sketches by Student-1 showing an integration of the
natural elements of wind, sun and rain flow orientation
into the design in order to further understand the site
179
5.35 Sketch by Student-4 that showed an integration of
landscape features to the natural elements of wind and
view
180
5.36 Adoptation of the three natural elements (a) into a new
design form (b) as perceived in the final design (c) as
generated by Student-1
182
5.37 Examples of analogies adopted by Student-3 from the
natural system of echoes (a) while Student-4 adopted
the leaf structure system (b) from a falling leaf (c)
183
5.38 Comparison of Student-4 (a and b) and Student-6’s (c, d and e) sketches pertaining to coherence in design
form
187
5.39 Relationship on the categories of students’ perceived elements to design themes as extracted from the
students’ sketches
189
6.1 Bridging the fundamentals of integrative thinking in
the design process of architecture studio learning
196
6.2 The model of conceptualisation process of architecture
students in their studio learning environment
203
6.3 Three factors that influence the student’s conceptualisation in the architectural studio learning
204
xx
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CAEM - Council of Architecture Education Malaysia
CLOs - Course Learning Outcomes
Crit - Design critique in the studio-based learning
DS - Diploma students
ELT - Experiential Learning Theory
EMT - Episodic Memories Theory
LAM - Board of Architects Malaysia
MOE - Ministry of Education
MS - Mainstream students
PAM - Malaysian Institute of Architects
PLOs - Programme Learning Outcomes
RLT - Reflective Learning Theory
RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects
RO - Research Objective
RQ - Research Question
UTM - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
xxi
LIST OF TERMINOLOGIES
Analogy - It is the ability to perceive and use relational
similarity between two situations, objects or events
properties.
Conceptualisation
design
- The process of giving meaning to a design problem
by generating and evaluating design to help the
students to define the concept abstractly into
something that intentional and logic.
Design
conversation
- It is refers to the reflective interactions among
designers or architects at their workplace, activities
or situations in order to understand problems, to get
ideas about solutions and to solve the design
problems.
Design critique - It is a process of displaying and confronting ideas
with the studio masters, clients or peers.
Design experience - It refers to a direct participation of students in
events or activities which utilises their own
understanding of experience, observation and
reflection.
Design iteration - It is a process of carrying design that involved
repetition of the tasks or actions in order to improve
the design ideas or product.
Design knowledge - The knowledge of designers with a unique ways of
knowing, understanding and applying ideas in
solving a design problem. It is a blending
knowledge of experiences, knowledge in action, and
exploration of what should be or means to do design
or the setting of values.
Design precedents - It is refers to the references or sources taken by the
students to validate their design ideas or concepts.
Normally, in the studio learning the design
precedents referred to the previous or existing
design projects by the architects or organisations.
xxii
Design sketches - Is the output produces by the students or designers
along their design process. Design sketches
mostly about the ideas, events or processes that
externalise on paper in the forms of written
statements, abstract signs, bubble diagrams, maps,
iconic images, and solid models.
Design studio
learning
- It is a pedagogic tool and a platform to enable
experiential learning by means of active
engagement with the environment. In design
school, it refers to a classroom that resemble a
workplace of designers.
Designer - It is refers to an experienced user in design
knowledge, theories and application, advanced
approaches and strategies who are dealing with
more complex ways of doing things in designing
and solving a design problem.
Diploma student - It is refers to the students who enrolled to the
architecture programme by using their diploma
studies. The diploma students have three year of
studio experiences, mostly have an excellent skills
in the technical application.
Mainstream
student
- It is refers to the students who enrolled to the
architecture programme directly from the
matriculation centre programme or those with
higher school qualification such as STPM or
STAM.
Novice student /
design student
- It referred to the design student who are new to
the design system, its nature and knowledge who
has tendency to use a simple design approach,
quick reasoning and little extension of knowledge
in performing design task.
xxiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Pilot Survey on the Conceptualisation Study 225
B Student Semi-interviewed Protocol
228
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Architectural education, as one of the most distinctive branches of education,
requires creative capabilities (Salama, 1995). These distinctions involved with the
balance between formal and socio-behavioral aspects as well as the balance between
the students’ faculties of searching, thinking and other mental activities. That is why,
in architectural education, central discussions were focused on approaches in
teaching methods, diversities of curriculum and learning methods, professionalism
and practice, the knowledge of architectural design thinking and design activities of
the architect. Despite the considerable differences in the architectural learning
process, there is one significant similarity, whereas the design studio become the
main forum of creative exploration, interaction and assimilation (Salama, 1995). This
architectural learning system was introduced in the 1890s in the Beaux-Arts school
in Paris. Since then, most independently run design studios across the world have
emphasised the design studio approach.
In the design studio learning environment, design always started with vague
and half-formed ideas. Therefore, sketching is conducted to clarify these existing
ideas as to generate new ones (Fish and Scrivener, 1990). Through sketching, it
allows the students to arise from the need to foresee the results of synthesis and
manipulation of objects to help the students to define the concept abstractly into
something that intentional and logical (Fish and Scrivener, 1990; Goel, 1995). In this
manner, sketching become the language of thought used by students to define the
2
design process. Continuously, through sketching, it aids students for further acts of
exploring ideas, expressing toughts, generating alternatives, evaluating moves, and
making actions (Johnson et. al, 2009, Do and Gross, 2001).
Due to the involvement of many variables and uncertainties in design ideas,
approaches and limitless number of solutions, the nature of design studio is
categorised as a wicked and ill-defined problem (Rittel and Weber, 1973; Head,
2010; Balassiano, 2011). Thus, this complex design nature make the design process
is a tough job to be completed both for the students and designers. For instance,
Casakin and Kreitler (2011) addressed the studio learning environment always
follow with creativity. Creativity is defined as a mental process that leads to the
development of unique and novel theories, ideas, solutions, or products (Reber,
1989). However, creativity involves wide variables range from emotions to
physiological and psychological challenges. Examples of creativity that characterise
the students in the studio learning involves describing the characteristics of objects
found in the existing environment, such as shapes, structures, metaphors, and sensory
qualities, as well as exploring the personal-subjective meaning of user’s preferences
in seeing things within his or her environment (Casakin and Kreitler, 2011).
Besides, design always emerges as wicked problem that have design
processes and approaches that hard to be explained. Thus, in the past three decades,
there have been an increased number of studies on the design process as an operation
in its own right (Marda, 1996; Gero, 1998a, 1998b; Oxman, 1999; 2004; Gero and
Fujii, 2000; Casakin & Kreitler, 2011). These studies were focused on the
understanding of design process, challenges and complexities of design faced by
designers and students, however, most attention concentrated on the actions and
strategies executed by the designers. For instance, the studies involved; types of
sketches and symbol systems, actualised cognitive processes and design activities
executed by the architects in solving a design problem, designer’s conversations and
relations to design movements, as well as the role of creativity to the designer’s
performances.
Considering design studio learning environment is the main platform for
students to learn about design, it is crucial to understand and to study the student’s
3
activities and design processes from their perspective. As the design thinking
approaches uses multiple ways of acquiring knowledge, such thinking, feeling,
reasoning, and intuiting (Melles, 2008), it is believes that the students have undergo
the same design processes as much as designers. Thus, this study concerns about the
student’s conceptualisation in identifying as well as solving the design problem in
their studio learning environment.
1.2 Problem Statement
The design process of studio learning environment offers an experiential-
based learning that emphasises hands-on experiences and direct engagements with
design activities (Garrot, 1983; Kolb, 1984; Harris, 2004). This learning by doing has
been found to maximise students’ abilities in understanding design problems by
leading them to reflect on the components of the design process (Schon, 1983; 1984;
Schon, 1992; Schon and Wiggins, 1992). Menezes and Lawson (2006) also noted
that direct engagements with the design process and environments provides a link to
design theories and practices in a sequential actions of precedents, schemata and
gambits. Besides, through iteration of design, these direct experiences gives students
access to knowledge acquisition (Kolb, 1984), manipulation of design activities
(Goldschmidt, 1991), development of student’s design thinking (Peppler and Kafal,
2010) as well as recognition of abstract symbols or sketches (Fish and Scrivener,
1991; Goel, 1995; Lawson and Loke, 1997). This indicates that the design studio
environment of the design processes and activities has become the formative
platform to mold the student’s understanding about the core of the architecture
education (Gur, 2010; Batuman and Altay, 2014).
However, in the reality of studio learning environment, the student’s
capability in reasoning and identifying the problems is uncertain, that results for
inconsistency of information in carrying design from one stage to another (Khaidzir,
2014). For instance, students were overlooked the useful information gathered from
the design briefing and site inventory stage while exploring new things during the
ideation stage. In the previous studies, Gick and Holyak (1980) and Beveridge and
4
Parkins (1987) addresses this situation as difficulties in spontaneously incorporating
design information they have just acquired. In addition, Gobert (1999) addresses this
situation of failure to link information from one stage to another as being related to a
lack of spatial memory that led to students’ approaches and strategies. This failure of
students in recalling and recognising the previous activities or precedents, has caused
interruptions in the chunks of information (Lawson, 2005b). Lawson (2005b) and
Menezes and Lawson (2006) believed that in order to produce good design
processes, the students need to follow the framework of constructing precedents,
developing schemata and applying gambits. In cognitive science of information
processes, studies shows that conceptualising routes not only crucial in the
wayfindings of human on the physical attachments such as in urban spaces, it also
crucial in the spatial relations and chunking of route directions to knowledge in the
learning processes (Denis, 1997; Richter and Klippel, 2005; Klippel, Richter and
Hansen, 2009, Zhang, Zherdeva and Ekstrom, 2014).
In other literatures, scholars confirmed that diverse interpretations, entities
and meanings in design also contributed confusion among students while interpreting
and revising their design sketches (Goldschmidt, 1991; Suwa and Tversky, 2001).
These interruptions of student’s reasoning in the design process of studio learning
environment is due to the student’s lack of design knowledge and experiences (Gero,
1999; Menezes and Lawson, 2006). The student’s limitation in design knowledge
and experiences has caused the reasoning process of identifying problems and
solving solutions become a tough job to be completed.
Considering the problem of student’s reasoning is due to student’s lack of
design knowledge and experiences, this study aimed to identify how the students
conceptualised their design problem and ideas in the design process of studio
learning environment. It is believed that by thinking of the problem, it allow
student’s reasoning as that promotes the student’s problem solving and critical
thinking on the phenomenon being studied. Therefore, this study is concerns on the
student’s conceptualisation of how the students reasoning of the design problem,
conceptualising ideas as well as developing design solutions. In the previous study,
Dorst (2004) emphasised that it is important to understand the ways students frame
their design problems, as each student approaches is far different from one another as
5
from the designers. As much, Roozenburg and Cross (1991) noted that there are
three models exhibited by the designers as well as students during the design process.
The models involves on how the students perceive design problem, how they treat
the problem, and how the design process has influenced to the overall learning.
Therefore, it is anticipated that in order to understand the student’s
conceptualisation and their reasoning process in the design process, the assessment
of design activities, design outcomes or understanding should be done in person.
This is primarily caused by their lack of design knowledge, which results in
differences in architectural approaches and strategies. It also infers that students will
always struggle with design when they have little knowledge and few design
experiences. Therefore, the ways students tackle problems are as varied as their
responses to their limited access to knowledge (Cross, 1990, 2006; Lawson, 2004b).
The overall framework of problem statement is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Framework of problem statement on the model of student’s design
process in the studio learning environment
Lack of design knowledge
and experiences
Student’s design process in the studio learning environment
give meaning
to the student’s design process
Caused interruptions in student’s reasoning in the design process;
1) Weak of design approaches and strategies
2) Relies most on trial and errors attempts
3) Confused and having hard time in interpreting design
4) Inconsistency in linking information from one stage to another
gives problem to
caused by
How have students
perceived/understood
the design problem?
How do students
treat the design
problem?
How the design process affected
students’ learning in relating to their perception and cognition?
6
1.2.1 The Need to Study Conceptualisation in the Local Context
In Malaysia, the number of institutions offering architecture studies is
increasing. As a result, the number of architecture students is also increasing. There
are seven public institutions, seven of private institutions, five of polytechnic centres,
and six of Kolej Mara institutions that offered architectural courses in Malaysia. The
figures for institutions offering architecture studies are illustrated in Table 1.1. This
increasing number of institutions suggests that a considerable high number of
students who are also involved in the design process of studio learning environment.
With the nature of wicked problems and their’ limitations in incorporating design
from one stage to another, design process becomes very challenging. That shows a
need to study and understand their conceptualisation of design in order to help these
architecture students to complete their design task successfully.
Table 1.1: Institutions that offer architectural courses in Malaysia
Type of
institutions
Description of Institution Level of studies
Public (7) UTM, USM, UiTM, UIAM,
UPM, UKM, UM
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor degree and
diploma in UTM and
UiTM
Private (7) Taylor’s, UCSI, IUKL, UTAR,
Limkokwing, ALFA, Twintech College
Bachelor of Science
and Diploma
Politeknik (5) Poli. Ungku Omar (PUO)
Poli. Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Pahang
(SAS)
Poli. Sultan Abd. Halim Muadzam Shah,
Kedah (MAS)
Poli. Port Dickson (PPD)
Poli. Sabak Bernam (PSB)
Diploma
Kolej Mara
(6)
KKTM Pasir Mas Diploma
IKM TSYA Pekan
IKM Alor Setar
IKM Sungai Petani
IKM Lumut
IKM Kota Kinabalu
Sijil
Sources: MoE (2015), Politeknik (2014), MARA (2014)
7
In addition, Table 1.2 illustrates the distribution of marks according to the
designed tasks, course and programme learning outcomes of the third year
architecture programme in the Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia. Task 1 of project brief development comprises of background study, site
inventory analysis and building program accumulated of 20% of marks. Task 2 of
ideation and design development accumulated of 50% of marks. Task 3 that
emphasises on construction of technical design accumulated of 30% of marks.
These marks distribution indicates that major concentration in the design course is
focused on task 2 of ideation and design development stage. According to the
programme learning outcomes (PLOs), three factors are prioritises in the
architectural programme which are the problem solving, skills and architectural
knowledge. In terms of course learning outcomes (CLOs), the student’s achievement
are assesses in four aspects; knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving, skills
and communication, whereas three of the aspects gives the highest percentages as
much as in the programme learning outcomes. As illustrates in Table 1.3, 60%
prioritises on critical thinking and problem solving, 20% for the skills, 15% for the
architectural knowledge while 5% for participation and coomunication.
Overall, the information in Table 1.2 and 1.3 informs that architectural
knowledge in designing and solving design problem is crucial, as failure of students
in incorporating information from one stage to another may possibly caused them to
have problem in perceive critical thinking and problem solving skill. This may affect
to their design approaches and strategies in identifying and solving problems. Thus,
it is essential to identify how the students understand the problems and continuously
perceived their ideas in the design process of studio learning. Recognising this may
assist and benefit the educators in order to understand the student’s conceptualisation
in the design process of studio learning environment and to find possible ways to
help them in the future.
8
Table 1.2: Distribution of marks according to tasks, CLOs and PLOs for third year
architecture programme, Semester 1, 2014/2015, Faculty of Built Environment,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Kn
ow
ledg
e
Sk
ills
Pro
ble
m
solv
ing
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
Tea
mw
ork
ing
Lif
elo
ng
lear
nin
g
Eth
ics
and
hu
man
ity
Lea
der
ship
En
trep
renu
rsh
ip
Program learning outcomes PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9
Task CLOs Mark
%
Task 1:
Project Brief
Development
CLO1 20 10
CLO2 5
CLO4 5
Task 2:
Ideation and
Design
Development
CLO1 50 5
CLO2 20 15 5
CLO3 5
Task 3:
Technical
Design and
Technology
Integration
CLO2 30 5 5 5
CLO3 10 5
Total 100 20 25 35 10 5 5
Source: Faculty of Built Environment (2014)
Table 1.3: Percentages of students’ achievement according to course learning
outcomes and design tasks
Task1 Task2 Task3 Total % of CLOs
CLO1: Knowledge 10 5 - 15
CLO2: CTPS 5 40 15 60
CLO3: Skills - 5 15 20
CLO4: Communication 5 - - 5
TOTAL 20 50 30
Source: Faculty of Built Environment (2014)
9
1.3 Research Gap
A review of at least 100 articles on design studies suggests that there are three
groups of disciplines involved in research concerning the architectural design. These
disciplines involve: (a) environmental studies, (b) pedagogy of learning and
instruction, and (c) design cognition (refer Figure 1.2). The examples of studies that
frame the theoretical gap for the study is illustrates in Table 1.4.
From the literature, it can be deduced that Malaysian researchers have
concentrated mostly on the disciplines of environmental behaviour and pedagogical
approaches. In term of environmental behaviour studies, for instance, it mostly
discusses on the user’s perceptual and behavioural responses to the environmental
issues relating to design criteria, standards and implementation and impacts. Among
examples, Tazilan et al. (2006) emphasised on Malaysian standard of public toilet
design, while Said (2009) and Said et al. (2005) concentrated on designing garden
and landscape design for the Malaysian hospital. Other studies such as Sahimi (2012)
focused on designing an ideal preschool centre according to the children’s
preferences on the school environment, while Yatiman et al. (2013) investigated on
affordances of primary school during their homeschool journey. These kind of
studies more focused on relationship of user-environments and ways to enhance it.
3
2
1
Environmental studies
Pedagogy teaching and learning
Design cognition
Figure 1.2: Categorisation of studies on the research concerning architectural
design relating to three groups of disciplines
10
In contrast, the next discipline of pedagogy in teaching and learning
concentrated on the studies relates to the user-environments in the architectural
education. For instance, Darus et al. (2007), Hushin & Rahim (2010), and
Hassanpour et al. (2011) investigated of the students perceptions on the mechanism
of teaching and learning in studio. Other studies were focused on the evaluation of
the studio critique assessment and facilities (Ayob et al., 2011; Utaberta et al., 2011;
2012; 2013). Baqutayan and Mai (2011) investigated on students’ ways of coping
strategies in handling stress in the design process. Besides, Zeeda (2001), Shari and
Jaafar (2005; 2006), Surat et al. (2011) and Rao and Arbi (2012) highlighted on the
education for sustainable issue and design curriculum in the architectural education
in Malaysia.
There are other studies that focused on the core element of design, regarding
of how the students think, draw and learn about the design process. At a glance, this
kind of study is falls under the architectural education, however, it is rare to be found
in Malaysia perspective. This is because most of the existing studies in the country
were focused on the environmental behaviour and the ways to improve the
architectural education in terms of design curriculum and syllabuses, studio facilities
and teaching and learning methods. The realm of design activities and processes are
not widely explored in Malaysia perspective, especially on the architecture students
in their design process of studio learning environment. Therefore, this study aimed to
explore the student’s conceptualisation in identifying and evolving ideas which relate
to the third discipline. The third discipline is design cognition concerning the
architectural thinking and creative thoughts that involves knowledge structures of
design process and reasoning system.
In the global perspective, there are growing interest focusing on the studies of
design cognition, whereas little to be found in the Malaysian context. Indeed, the
existing studies were more focused on the designers rather than the students
themselves. For instance, Lawson (1994; 2004a; 2004b; 2005), Menezes and Lawson
(2006), Lawson and Dorst (2009), and Suwa and Tversky (1996; 2002) were
concentrated on how the designers think about design and perceived of their
sketches. Studies by Goldschmidt (1991), Purcell and Gero (1998), and Suwa et al.
(2006) were focused on types of sketches, design motives and meanings in
11
designers’ sketches. Besides, the studies by Casakin and Goldschmidt (1999),
Goldschmidt (1992; 2001; 2003), Casakin (2004; 2007; 2010), and Casakin and
Kreitler (2011) investigated on analogies and metaphors as strategies evolved by
designers in solving design problems thats extended their creativity in design. Above
all, only Suwa et al. (1998), Kavakli and Gero (2001; 2003), Kavakli et al. (2006),
and Ahmed et al. (2003) investigated the relationship between sketching and
cognitive activities by comparing distinction between the designers and students
when it comes to tackling design problems (refer Table 1.4).
Comparatively, in the local context there were only two studies focused on
design cognition. The first study emphasised on cognitive interactions between tutors
and students in the design process of studio learning (Khaidzir and Lawson, 2012).
The next study focused on the relationship of conceptual architectural sketches to the
application of visual 3D interface using an architectural drawing software (Rahimian
and Ibrahim, 2010). The other two studies were only a pilot study on student’s
conceptualisation in the studio learning (Adi, Khaidzir and Said, 2015, Adi, Said and
Khaidzir, 2014).
Thus, it showed there is a gap in the existing literature of architectural
knowledge of design processes as perceived by students in the studio learning,
particularly in Malaysia. Although there are growing interest among the scholars
globally studied about the design process, however, there are still little research to be
found that explores on how the students perceived and conceptualised design while
undertake design process in the studio learning environment. Therefore, a study on
the conceptualisation of architectural design process among the students is necessary,
as it promotes a new trend of research on architectural education in Malaysia.
12
Table 1.4: Theoretical gap on the architecture studies
Discipline 1: Environmental behaviour
Authors Concern of research Parameter measured
Examples includes: Tazilan et
al. (2006), Said et al. (2005),
Sid (2007), Sahimi (2012),
Yatiman et al. (2013)
Evaluation on the environmental issue
and design that impacted to the
community
Toilet design
Garden and landscape
design
Hospital design
School and classroom
environment
Homeschool journey
and rural environment
Urban neighborhood
Discipline 2: Learning and instruction
Authors Concern of research Parameter measured
Examples includes: Graham
(2003), Bailey (2005), Darus
et al. (2007), Abdullah et al.,
(2011), Utaberta and
Hassanpour (2012), Oh et al.
(2012), Utaberta et al. (2011),
Demirkan & Demirbas (2008;
2010), Osman et al. (2009),
Hushin & Rahim (2010), Ayob
et al. (2011)
Evaluating studio critique assessment,
curriculum design and learning
outcomes in architectural design. It
focus on the range of students’ generic skills and performancess
Types and effect of
studio evaluation
system on students
Learning styles and
preferences
F.Y.E perceptions
Sustainable curriculum
Leadership
Examples includes: Sachs
(1999), Harris (2004; 2004),
Tucker & Reynolds (2006),
Baqutayan and Mai (2011),
Surat et al. (2011), Rao & Arbi
(2012)
Focus on effective teaching and
learning approaches for both student-
lecturer interaction
Pedagogical approach
Threats and dilemma
Teaching-research links
Teaching methods
Project-based learning
Types of knowledge
Discipline 3: Design cognition
Authors Concern of research Parameter measured
Examples includes: Schon
(1983), Cross (1990),
Roozenburg and Cross (1990),
Oxman (1999), Dorst (2004),
Uluoglu (2000), Ho (2001),
Lawson (1994;1997), Khaidzir
(2007), Emir and Duzgun
(2008), Khaidzir and Lawson
(2012)
Conceptual thinking, reflection and
knowledge structures of the previous
design segments and activities
Reflective learning
Design memories and
situations
Interactive learning
Cognitive approach
Design memories and
situations
Personal attributes and
creativity
Examples includes: Goldschmidt (1991), Goel
(1995), Casakin and
Goldschmidt (1991; 2001;
2003), Casakin (2004; 2007)
Variation of types of sketches, idea
development, approaches and
strategies in reasoning design
problems, and generation of cognitive
processes and actions among users
Types of sketches and
motives
Imagery, analogies and
metaphors
Types of cognitive
processes
13
1.4 Research Aim
The aim of this study is to identify how the students conceptualise design
ideas in the design process of studio learning environment, specifically in the third
year architecture design studio in the Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
1.5 Research Objectives
To achieve the research aim, the following objectives were formulated:
i. to explore conceptualisation of design ideas by architecture students in design
studio;
ii. to identify the different conceptualisation approaches by the students;
iii. to categorise the concept sketches produced by the students in the study.
1.6 Research Questions
From the literature, it is assumed that ideas are always explicated in vague
and half-formed (Fish and Scrivener, 1990). It is thought that while reasoning,
students linked their previous experiences of site and precedents to recognise and
criticise the current design problems and situations (Gero, 1999). This mean that the
students is trying to recall and recognise of their previous design segments that
provide linkages to the related design problems (Oxman, 1999). Therefore, it is
assumed that active engagements of students in design such as revisiting, repeating
and sketching design may significantly influence the students’ reflection in action. It
is also anticipated that students’ engagements with the learning environment may
also be influenced by the factors of self-actualisation and creativity.
14
As the study aimed on how the students conceptualise design ideas in the
design process, there involves three steps that included an exploration of the
perceptual aspects of the students’ pertaining design ideas. Firstly, exploring
student’s perceptions is vital to understand of how the students perceived the design
ideas. Secondly, understanding of the design stages and activities occurred in the
studio learning guide towards the differences of student’s sketches in the design
process. Thirdly, identifying the factors is crucial in order to understand what assist
the students in tackling the design process. From these three stages, the study
discusses why are there differences of design activities, sketches or actions
undertook by the students in the design process of studio learning environment.
Table 1.5 illustrates the framework of the research questions with regard to
the aim, assumptions, and objectives of the study. There are three research questions
that seek to explore: (i) how the students identify and generate design ideas, (ii) what
are the differences in student’s sketches, activities and actions, and (iii) the properties
of design that influence the student’s design process in the studio learning
environment.
Table 1.5: The framework of research questions to aim and objectives
AIM: To identify how the students conceptualised design ideas in the design
process of studio learning environment.
Key research
question
Research Question Research Objective
What is the
appropriate
framework that
describe the
conceptualisation
process among the
architectural
students?
RQ1: How the students
conceptualised design in the
studio?
1. To explore
conceptualisation of
design ideas by
architecture students in
the design studio
RQ2: What are the
differences in student’s sketches in the design
process? Why?
2. To identify the different
conceptualisation
approaches by the
students
RQ3: What are the
properties of design that
influence the student’s design process?
3. To categorise the
concept sketches
produced by the
students in the study
15
1.7 Scope and Variables of the Study
The study is based on experiential learning research which investigates
student’s reflection in action. The scope of study explores the perpetual student’s
responses of design process in term of identifying problem and conceptualising
design ideas of their design task. The student’s responses in identifying those
problem and design ideas are extracted from their sketches. The data rely on the
iteration of students’ actions in revisiting, repeating and sketching their design ideas.
The iteration in design process of studio learning environment involved a cyclic
process of prototyping, testing, analysing, and refining a product or process
(Buckingham et al., 1997). As much, the design process starts with defining problem
as a crucial point to emerge design, whereas iteration aids the students by
incrementally refining design based on evaluation of forms and functions.
In the perspective of studio learning environment in Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, design process involves seven stages: (1) problem identification, (2)
information gathering, (3) concept generation, (4) concept resolution, (5) design
solution, (6) schematic design, and (7) detail design (Khaidzir, 2014). This study
focuses on how the students identify the design problem and at the same time
conceptualised and evolved their design ideas to solve the design task. Therefore, in
order to understand the student’s conceptualisation, exploring the design activities
perceived in the student’s sketches is crucial. Terefore, the design activities is the
dependent variable for the study. As much, the students’ sketches produced in the
design process is a longitudinal context that explains the relationship within the
context based on what the students has perceived, understood and rationalised. Thus,
the students’ reflections is the independent variable that expected to shape the
student’s conceptualisation in the design process. Figure 1.3 illustrates the
relationship between the dependent and independent variables for the study.
16
The study targeted on a group of third year architecture students in the
Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The study was
conducted in semester 1, session 2014/2015 of course subject SBEA 3158, which
represented the architecture design studio as the context of the study. The selection
of the students is based on purposive sampling. This is discussed in detail in Chapter
4 of Research Methodology. It is beyond the scope of this study to examine the
student’s behavioural responses in the design process due to different gender, ethnic,
cultural styles, and student’s learning styles. This is because ones skill are blended of
multiple talents or intelligence regardless of their gender, ethnic or cultural
background (Gardner, 2008; Smith, 2008; Armstrong, 2010). However, the student’s
rational and logical basis are consistently resulted from their self-actualisation of the
phenomenon, event or problem.
Students’ design activities (DEPENDENT)
Conceptualisation
Student’s reflections (INDEPENDENT)
Figure 1.3: Dependent and independent variables of students’ design
process in the conceptualisation study
17
1.8 Significance of Study
Significant of the study are respond to follow;
i. The study adds to the body of knowledge that sketches and iteration play an
important role in student’s conceptualisation in the design process to
represent the architectural learning, which has not been tested before in the
local context;
ii. A framework of analysis which emphasises the importance of design
activities in the design process, representing factors and elements of design of
which the students need to be engaged in order to formulate design learning.
The formulation of the framework is based on student’s perceptual responses
and their sketches to the actualisation of design knowledge.
1.9 Outline of Research Methodology
The study explores the properties and attributes that influence student’s
conceptualisation of architectural design process in the studio learning environment.
The design process occurs in the studio learning involves iterative, therefore, the
methodology employed a content analysis and qualitative study in order to
understand of how the students perceived their design sketches, activities and
reflections. The study also employed a correlation design in a case study research to
establish relationships between the student’s sketches and approaches. The study
utilises of case studies from 6 students from the third year architecture design studio
as its main respondents. Comparing the design sketches and works from these 6
students allow further understanding of the students’ conceptualisation in identifying
design problem and design ideas in the studio learning environment.
18
To achieve the aim and objectives of the study, the study was conducted in
six operational stages.
i. literature review of architecture design studies relating to the role of
sketches, iteration, design stages and processes, cognitive processes and
activities to further understand and construct research gap;
ii. synthesis of theoretical backgrounds that constructed from the theory of
reflective learning by Schon and episodic memory by Lawson;
iii. synthesis of architecture programme and curriculum system in Malaysia as
well as in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia;
iv. data collection and methodology on six third year architecture students;
v. triangulation and documentation of findings
vi. conclusion of the study which focuses on summarisation of findings,
contribution, and suggestions for the future study
1.9.1 Stage 1: Literature Review of Architecture Studies
The literature review stage provided an understanding on the role of
sketching and iteration in the architecture design process. It also illustrates the
characteristics and differences between the designers and students in perceiving their
design tasks. The literatures also gives an insight into the disciplines that involved in
research concerning the architectural design process of: environmental studies,
pedagogy of learning, and design cognition. It is inferred that the first and second
disciplines of environmental studies and pedagogy of design learning have been
widely discussed in the local context. However, aspects in the third discipline of
design cognition that focusing on the architecture reasoning, creative thoughts, and
explicit design processes especially among the students are rare to be found,
particularly in Malaysia context. Besides, the statistical inferences also indicate that a
growing number of architecture students and institutions are increasing in both of
public and private institutions in Malaysia. Therefore, it showed an urgency to
conduct the study in order to understand what the students think, draw and perceived,
19
as well as to assist the students and benefits the educators on an ideal design process
of studio learning environment.
1.9.2 Stage 2: Synthesis of Theoretical Backgrounds
Two theoretical backgrounds make up the conceptualisation study of design
process: Schon’s reflective learning and Lawson’s episodic memory. The theories
highlight on the interaction between reflective action and the constructive memory of
students that aids them in conceptualised their design problem. Through the iteration
process, the students criticised, refined, repeated and reflected of their conceptual
ideas by actively recall and recognise of the design ideas. Therefore, it is assumed
that conceptualisation is constructed as based on reflection in action whereas its
interact with the aspect of iterative, reflective, self-actualisation and creativity.
1.9.3 Stage 3: Synthesis of Architecture Programme in Malaysia and UTM
The next stage focuses on the understanding of the architecture education in
Malaysia as well as the architecture programme offered in Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM). The chapter discusses about the background of the respondents,
the enrolment procedures and the nature of architecture curriculum system in
Malaysia, as well as the architecture programme offered in Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia.
20
1.9.4 Stage 4: Data Collection and Methodology
The study employed case studies on six (n=6) third year architecture students
in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru. The selection of students was based
on the purposive sampling technique. Data elicited using two methods: (1)
observations on student’s sketches from the initial design stage to the final stage and
(2) description on student’s interviews and studio reflections. The data were analysed
using a content analysis of segmentation and coding that based on categorisation of
raw data of the student’s sketches. The flow of data collection, the stages and the
outputs are illustrates in Figure 1.4. Detail discussion of the methods and procedures
are discussed in Chapter 4 of Research Methodology.
1.9.5 Stage 5: Triangulation of Data Analysis
Data were analysed using content data analysis. Data of the students’
sketches, their reflections and interviews, as well as in-depth observations on their
pins-up presentation boards were inferred to answer the research objectives and
questions. The students’ conceptualisation and design activities were then analysed
and inferred through categorisation of themes, synthesis, and correlation analysis
between the elements of design as perceived by the six students.
1.9.6 Stage 6: Conclusion of the Study
The final stage emphasises the conclusion of the study. In this stage, it
summarises the findings of the study, discusses on the model of student’s
conceptualisation in the architecture design studio, as well as contribution and
suggestions for the future study.
21
1.10 Outline of Thesis Content
Chapter 1 introduces the problems and background of the conceptualisation
study in the design process of architecture studio learning environment. The design
studio as a learning environment for architecture students seems to be characterised
through sketching activities and a dynamic iteration process. In order for the students
to learn to design, they have to actively engage with all these design processes to
activate their architectural thinking and creative thought, which thinking and doing
operations are deemed to be equally valuable and crucial in the design process.
Chapter 2 provides theoretical backgrounds and literature reviews that
relates to the study of student’s conceptualisation. Two theoretical backgrounds has
make up the conceptualisation study: (1) Reflective Learning Theory and (2)
Episodic Memory Theory, where it indicates that the nature of the studio learning
environment fits with students’ thinking and reasoning. The chapter outlines the role
of analytical thinking and creative thoughts as well as sketches and iteration in aiding
the students’ design process in the studio learning environment.
Chapter 3 contextually reviews the state of architecture education in
Malaysia. This chapter introduces the function of the Board of Architects Malaysia
(LAM) and the Malaysian Institute of Architects (PAM) in educating and accrediting
the architectural programmes in Malaysia. It also outlines the framework and
channels of student’s enrolment into the architecture programmes and institutions in
Malaysia. In addition, the chapter also brief about the background and the existing
architecture programmes offered in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Chapter 4 outlines the strategies of inquiring data and methods of data
analysis. The chapter also describes the study employed a case study approach with a
combined strategies that fits to the nature of data and focus of the study. Thus, data
obtained through observations of students’ sketches, studio reflections, pin-up
reviews and boards presentation, and students’ interviews. Lastly, the chapter
describes about the data analysis of a content analysis.
22
Chapter 5 presents the results and discussions of the findings. The
discussions are focused on the student’s design activities observed in the design
process, the differences on number of student’s sketches, as well as perceived
elements of design that influenced the student’s design process in the studio.
Chapter 6 concludes the thesis with a discussion of an overall findings
including the theoretical, methodologies and design implications for the body of
knowledge. It also concludes the key factor that affect the student’s
conceptualisation, the model of the student’s conceptualisation that occurred in the
design process of studio learning, as well as contributions of the study and
suggestions for future study.
An overall outline of the research methodology and thesis content for the
study is illustrated in Figure 1.4.
23
Data 1: Students’ Sketches and Studio
Reflection
Triangulated data
Evidences
Data 2: Student’s Interview
Analysis and Discussion (Chapter 5)
Conclusion (Chapter 6)
RO1: To explore conceptualisation of
design ideas by architecture students in
the design studio
RO2: To identify the different
conceptualisation approaches by the
students
RO3: To categorise the concept
sketches produced by the students in the
study
Literature review on design studies
and issues – (Chapter 2 and 3)
Aim: To identify how the students
conceptualise design ideas in the
design process of studio learning
environment, specifically in the third
year architecture design studio in the
FAB, UTM.
Research Gap and Problem
Statement- Introduction (Chapter 1)
Role of sketches and
iteration in stimulating
knowledge
Theoretical backgrounds and
underpinnings
Reviews of architecture
education in Malaysia,
enrolment procedures and
architecture programmes
Qualitative Approach of Case Study -
Research Methodology (Chapter 4)
Background Review
Figure 1.4: Thesis objectives and structure
210
REFERENCES
Abdullah, A. A. (2013). Zaha Hadid Form Making Strategies for Design. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
Abdullah, N. A. G., Beh, S. C., Tahir, M. M., Ani, A. I. C., & Tawil, N. M. (2011).
Architecture design studio culture and learning spaces : a holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol (15), 27–32.
Accurso, M. S. (2004). The Torrance Incubation Model of Teaching in a Middle
School Social Studes Classroom.
Adi, F. M., Khaidzir, K. A. M., & Said, I. (2015). Role of Conceptualisation as a
Catalyst in Capturing Urban Issues within the Studio Learning Environment. In
Asian Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies AcE-Bs2014Seoul. 22th-
24th August 2014, Chung-Ann University, Seoul, South Korea. Vol (170), 165–176). Elsevier .
Adi, F.M., Said, I. & Khaidzir, K.A.M., 2014. Conceptualisation of Design Process:
A Pilot Study on Architectural Students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. In
Prof. Dr. Hadi Nur (eds). 8th SEATUC Symposium 4-5th March 2014. Johor
Bahru. OS03 15–18.
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. ., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences
between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks.
Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.
Ahmadi, R., & Wang, R. H. (1999). Managing Development Risk in Product Design
Processes. Operation Research, 47(2), 235–246.
Akin, O. (1991). Architects’ reasoning with structures and functions. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(3), 273–294.
Armstrong, T. (2010). Multiple intelligences. Retrieved in January 2nd
, 2017 from
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm
Ayob, A., Hussain, A., Mustafa, M. M., Fauzi, M., & Shazi, A. (2011). Nurturing
Creativity and Innovative Thinking through Experiential Learning. In Kongres
Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran UKM, 2010, Vol (18), 247–254.
211
Bailey, R. O. (2005). The Digital Design Coach: Enhancing Design Conversations
in Architectural Education. Victoria University of Wellington.
Balassiano, K. (2011). Tackling “Wicked Problems” in Planning Studio Courses. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(4), 449–460.
Baqutayan, S. M. S., & Mai, M. M. (2011). Stress among architecture students.
IJAMSAR International Journal of Advanced Medical Sciences and Applied
Research, 1(1), 1–8.
Batuman, B., & Altay Baykan, D. (2014). Critique by design: Tackling urban
renewal in the design studio. Urban Design International, 19(3), 199–214.
Benami, O and Jin, Y. (2002). Cognitive stimulation in creative conceptual design.
In ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, (DETC2002/DTM-
3402).
Beveridge, M., & Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem
solving. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 230–237.
Bilda, Z., & Gero, J. S. (2005). Do We Need CAD during Conceptual Design? In
Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2005 (pp. 155–164). Key Centre
of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
Blackstone, A. (2016). Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods (v.1.0).
Blalock, H. M. J. (1979). Measurement and Conceptualization Problems: The Major
Obstacle to Integrating Theory and Research. American Sociological Review,
44(6), 881–894.
Broadbent, G. (1988). Design Methods in Architecture (eds). London: D. Fulton.
Bryan. (2014). The Problem With Design Thinking Is That I Still Don’t Know What Design Thinking Is. Retrieved September 6, 2016, from
http://zurb.com/article/1349/the-problem-with-design-thinking-is-that-
Buckingham, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997).
Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition. Human-Computer Interaction,
12(3), 37–41.
Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy:
implications for design education. Design Studies, Vol (20), 153–175.
Casakin, H. (2004). Visual Analogy as a Cognitive Strategy in the Design Process:
Expert Versus Novice Performance Hernan Casakin. Journal of Design
Research, 4(2).
212
Casakin, H. (2007). Metaphors in design problem-solving: Implication for creativity.
The International Journal of Design, 1, 23–35.
Casakin, H. (2010). Visual analogy, visual displays and the nature of design
problems: The effect of expertise. Environment and Planning: Design B, Vol
(37), 170–188.
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2011). The cognitive profile of creativity in design.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol (6), 159–168.
CMHA. (2016). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from
http://cmha.calgary.ab.ca/mental-health/understanding-mental-illness/post-
traumatic-stress-disorder/
Costa, R., & Sobek, D. K. (2003). Iteration in Engineering Design: Inherent and
Unavoidable or Product of Choices Made? In ASME 2003 International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference (pp. 669–674).
Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3),
127–140.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer-Verlag London Limited.
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Darus, Z., Zain, M. F., & Mohammad, N. (2007). Persepsi majikan terhadap
kumpulan pertama pelajar senibina UKM: Hasil kajian latihan industri. In
Seminar Pendidikan Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina 2007.
David, M. L. (1993). Qualitative Content Analysis: A guide to Paths Not Taken.
Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112–121.
Denzin, K. N., & Lincoln, S. Y. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Research (4th Eds). Sage Publication.
Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process
through learning styles. Design Studies, 24(24), 437–456.
Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the
relationship of academic performance and gender in design education.
Learning, Vol (17), 345–359.
Demirkan, H., & Demirbas, O. O. (2008). Focus on the learning styles of freshman
design students. Design Studies, Vol (29), 254–266.
213
Demirkan, H., & Demirbas, Ö. O. (2010). The effects of learning styles and gender
on the academic performance of interior architecture students. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol (2), 1390–1394. Elsevier.
Denis, M. (1997). The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production
of spatial discourse. Applied Psychology, 16, 409–458.
Dilnot, C. (1986). Design as a socially significant activity: An Introduction. Design
Studies, Vol(3), 13–146.
Do, E. Y., & Gross, M. D. (2001). Thinking with diagrams in architectural design.
Artificial Intelligence Review, Vol (15), 135–149.
Dorsey, J., Xu, S., Smedresman, G., Rushmeier, H., & McMillan, L. (2007). The
mental canvas: A tool for conceptual architectural design and analysis. In
Proceedings - Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications (pp.
201–210).
Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design
activity. Design Studies, 16, 261–274.
Dorst, C. H., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution and
the problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
Dorst, C. H. (2004). The Problem of Design Problems. Journal of Design Research,
4(2), 1–13.
Dorst, K., & Hansen, T. C. (2011). Modeling paradoxes in novice and expert design.
In International Conference on Engineering Design ICED’11.
Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014).
Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness. SAGE Open, Vol
(4), 1–10.
Emir, S., & Duzgun, H. (2008). A Research on Architectural Concepts at First Year
Design Studio. In Designtrain Congres-Guidance in/for Training Proceedings
Part II. Amsterdam-Netherlands. 5-7th June 2008, (pp. 69–79). Amsterdam-
Netherlands.
FAB. (2014). Faculty of Built Environment. Course Outline and Programme for SBE
3158 (Architecture Design Studio) of Session 2013/2014. Department of
Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the Mind’s Eye: Sketching and Visual
Cognition. In Leonardo, Vol (23), pp. 117–126. MIT Press.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
214
Galle, P., & Kovács, L. B. (1992). Introspective observations of sketch design
Design Studies, 13(3), 229–272.
Gardner, H. (2008). Five Minds for the Future, United States: Library of Congress
Gasparski, W. (1979). Praxiological systematic approach to design studies. Design
Studies, 1(2), 101–105.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural Research Methods (Second Eds).
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Garrot, J. G. (1983). Facilitating experiential learning in environmental design.
Design Studies, 4(2), 115–123.
Gero, J. S. (1999). Constructive Memory in Design Thinking. In Design Thinking
Research Symposium: Design Representation (Vol) 42, pp. 29–35. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gero, J. S., & Fujii, H. (2000). A computational framework for concept formation for
a situated design agent. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(6), 361–368.
Gick, M., & Holyak, J. K. (1980). Analogical Problem Solving. Cognitive
Psychology, 12, 306–355.
Given, M. L. (2008). Purposive Sampling 1. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative
Research Methods. (Ed, Vol. 2, pp. 697–698). California: Sage: Thousand
Oaks.
Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. . (2007). What stands and develops between creative
and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10–18.
Gobert, J. D. (1999). Expertise in the comprehension of architectural plans:
Contribution of representation and domain knowledge. Visual and Spatial
Reasoning in Design ’99, 184–205.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. (Ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
(pp. 128-135).
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The Dialectics of Sketching. Creativity Research Journal,
4(2), 123–143.
Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Criteria for Design Evaluation: A Process-oriented
Paradigm. In Principles of Computer-Aided Design: Evaluating and Predicting
Design Performances (Eds), pp. 67–79. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team o f one. Design Studies, 16(2), 189–209.
215
Goldschmidt, G. (1998). Creative architectural design: reference versus precedence.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15(3), 258–270.
Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Chapter 9 Visual Analogy- a Strategy for Design Reasoning
and Learning 1 Two Systems of Reasoning. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, &
W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design
Education (pp. 199–219). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The Backtalk of Self-Generated Sketches. Design Studies,
19(1), 72–88.
Goldschmidt, G. (2004). Design Representation. (G. Goldschmidt & W. L. Porter,
Eds.). Springer London.
Graham, E. M. (2003). Studio Design Critique: Student and Faculty Expectations
and Reality. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
College
Greger, S. (2009). Concept Design in an Agile Environment.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural Research Methods (Second Ed).
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Gur, E. (2010). Open and Cell-Type Design Studios: Their Impact on Architectural
Education. International Journal of Architectural Research (Archnet-IJAR),
4(2-3), 216–224.
Harris, N. (2004). Guest Editorial Experiential Learning in Built Environment
Education The Collection of Papers Some Common Themes and Key Issues.
CEBE Transactions, 1(1), 3–7.
Harris, N. (2006). Student Experiences of Work-based Learning in Planning
Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 237–249.
Hassanpour, B., Utaberta, N., Zaharim, A., & Abdullah, N. G. (2011). Students ’ Perception of the Evaluation System in Architecture Studios. In World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology (pp. 383–389).
Head, B. (2010). Wicked Problems Revisisted: Can we Successfully Tackle Complex
Problems? New South Wales.
Ho, C. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design
thinking: differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22, 27–45.
Holyoak, K. ., & Thagard, P. (1997). The Analogical Mind. American Psychologist
Association, 52(1), 35–44.
216
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content
Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Hushin, H., & Rahim, I. (2010). Pelaksanaan Program First Year Experience (FYE)
di Fakulti Alam Bina, Fakulti Kejuruteraan dan Sains Geoinformasi serta
Fakulti Sains Komputer dan Sistem Maklumat Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Kongres Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran UKM, 2010.
Jin, Y., & Chusilp, P. (2006). Study of mental iteration in different design situations.
Design Studies, 27, 25–55.
Johnson, G., Gross, M. D., Hong, J., & Do, E. Y. (2009). Computational Support for
Sketching in Design : A Review. Human-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1–93.
Jupp, V. (2006). Validity of Explanation. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE Dictionary of
Social Research Methods (pp. 312–313). London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design
Studies, 22(4), 347–364.
Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2003). Strategic Knowledge Differences between an
Expert and a Novice Designer. In Human behaviour in design: Individuals,
teams, tools (pp. 42–52). Springer: Verlag.
Kavakli, M., Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2006). Sketching interpretation in
novice and expert designers. In J. S. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and
Spatial Reasoning in Design II (pp. 209–220). Cambridge: Key Centre of
Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
Khaidzir, K. A. (2007). An expertise study of cognitive interactions between tutors
and students in design tutorial conversations. University of Sheffield.
Khaidzir, K. A. M., & Lawson, B. (2012). The cognitive construct of design
conversation. Research Engineering Design.
Khaidzir, K. A. (2014). Interpretations and personal reflections on the design
processes, cultures and applications in the third year architecture studio in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Klippel, A., Richter, K.-F., & Hansen, S. (2009). Cognitively Ergonomic Route
Directions. In A. Karimi, Hassan (Ed.), Handbooks of Research on
Geoinformatics (pp. 230–237). Hersey, New York: Information Science
Reference (IG Global).
Kolb, D. . (1984). Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development. In E. Cliffs (Ed.), Learning from Experience (pp. 19–38). New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
217
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design
Synthesis. Design Studies, 26(1).
Kosslyn, M. S. (1999). Visual Mental Images as Re-presentations of the World: A
Cognitive Neuroscience Approach. In J. S. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual
and Spatial Reasoning in Design (pp. 93–101). Key Centre of Design
Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
Laerd-dissertation. (2016). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods dissertations
What are they and which one should I choose? Retrieved September 5, 2016,
from http://dissertation.laerd.com/getting-started-p2.php#types
LAM. (2004). Lembaga arkitek malaysia. CPD Guidelines Revised Sept. 2004, (3),
1–16.
LAM. (2016). Board of Architects Malaysia. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from
http://www.lam.gov.my/accreditation/list-of-recognised-programmes
Lawson, B. (1994). Design in mind. (2nd Edition). (pp. 22-28). Oxford: Butterworth
Architectural
Lawson, B., & Loke, S. M. (1997). Computers, words and pictures. Design Studies,
18, 171–183.
Lawson, B. (2004a). (a) Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design
expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443–457.
Lawson, B. (2004b). (b) What Designers Knows (1st edition). Oxford: Elsevier-
Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think The Design Process Demystified (Fourth
Edition). Oxford: Architectural Press .
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Oxford: Elsevier.
Le, H. N., Wynn, C. D., & Clarkson, P. J. (2012). Impacts of concurrency, iteration,
design review, and problem complexity on design project lead time and error
generation. Concurrent Engineering, 20(1), 55–67.
Luborsky, M. R., & Rubinstein, R. L. (1995). Sampling in Qualitative Research:
Rationale; Issues; and Methods. Res Aging, 17(1), 89–113.
Mahdavinejad, M., Shahrigharahkoshan, S., & Ghasempourabadi, M. (2012). The
role of site analysis in creativity of students of bachelor or architecture, Case:
Design Studio III. In The World Conference on Design, Arts an Education
(DAE-2012), May 1-3 2012, Antalya, Turkey (pp. 1000–1004). Procedia -Social
and Behavioural Sciences.
218
Maher, M. L. O. U., Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalising design
exploration as co-evolution. In J. S. Gero & F. S. (eds) (Eds.), Advances in
formal design methods for CAD (pp. 3–30). Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Malamed, C. (2016). Using Graphics to Improve Learning.
Marda, N. (1996). Architectural Concept Formation Transmission of Knowledge in
the Design Studio in Relation to Teaching Methods. University College London.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6),
522–525.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 1(2), 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385
MARA. Senarai Program Senibina Sepenuh Masa yang ditawarkan di Kolej
Kemahiran Tinggi Mara (KKTM) dan Institut Kemahiran Mara (IKM) (2014).
Retrieved from mara.gov.my
Marda, N. (1996). Architectural Concept Formation Transmission of Knowledge in
the Design Studio in Relation to Teaching Methods. University College London.
Melles, G. (2008). Curriculum Design Thinking : A New Name for Old Ways of Thinking and Practice? Centre of Built Environment (CEBE), 299–308.
Menezes, A., & Lawson, B. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design
Studies, 27(5), 571–585.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (n.d.). Drawing and Verifying
Conclusions. In Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd Edition,
pp. 275–322). London: Sage.
MoE. (2015). Senarai Universiti IPTA yang menawarkan kursus senibina.
Nadiah, S., & Said, I. (2012). Young Children Selections of the Physical Elements in
the Preschool Environment. In Asia Pacific International Conference on
Environment-Behaviour Studies, Grand Margherita Hotel, Kuching, Sarawak,
Malaysia, 7-9 December 2010, Vol (38), 176–183.
Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y. (2012). A theoretical framework of
design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 1–24.
Oliver, P. (2006). Purposive Sampling. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE Dictionary of
Social Research Methods (pp. 245–246). London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
219
Osman, M., Che-Ani, A. ., Tawil, N. ., Abdullah, N. A. ., Tahir, M. ., & Surat, M.
(2009). Keberkesanan teori pembelajaran berasaskan studio (PBS): kajian
perbandingan program seni bina di Universiti Iowa dan Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM). In Seminar Pendidikan Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina (PeKA
2009) (pp. 102–111). UKM.
Oxman, R. (1999). Chapter 12 The Mind in Design : A Conceptual Framework for Cognition in Design Education. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W.
Newstetter (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design
Education (pp. 269–295). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education.
Design Studies, 25, 63–91.
PAM. (2016). Malaysian Institute of Architects. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from
http://www.pam.org.my/index.php/the-institute/about-us
Park, J. A., Kim, Y. S., & Cho, J. Y. (2006). Visual reasoning as a critical attribute in
design creativity. In International Design Research Symposium (pp. 1–11).
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and Reframing: A Situated Practice. Design
Studies, 32 (6), 573–587.
Peppler, K. A., & Kafal, Y. B. (2010). Gaming Fluencies : Pathways into Participatory Culture in a Community Design Studio. International Journal of
Learning and Media, 1 (4), 45–58.
Politeknik. Senarai Program Pengajian Kursus Secara Sambilan (KSS) di Politeknik
KPT, Integration and Curriculum Report of Polytechnic Centres (2014).
Retrieved from pms.edu.my
Pour, R. F., & Rahinah, I. (2011). The impact of VR 3D sketching on spatial
cognitive in collaborative design. Design Studies, 32 (3), 255–291.
Prosser, J., & Loxley, A. (2008). ESRC National Centre for Research Methods
Review Paper: Introducing Visual Methods. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/420/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-010.pdf
Prats, M., & Earl, C. F. (2006). Exploration through drawings in the conceptual stage
of product design. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition ’06
(pp. 83–102). Springer.
Purcell, T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the Design Process. Design Studies,
19, 389–430.
Rao, S. P., & Arbi, E. (2012). Education For Sustainability : Teaching and Learning,
Research and Publications, Consultancy. Journal of Design and the Built
Environment, Vol (1), 41–50.
220
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 118 (3), 219–235.
Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2001). Improving Design Processes through Structured
Reflection. Eindhoven University of Technology.
Richter, K.-F., & Klippel, A. (2005). Conceptualising Route in Cognitive Process. In
C. et. al (Eds) Freksa (Ed.), Spatial Cognition IV: Reasoning, Action,
Interaction (pp. 58–78). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.
Policy Sciences, Vol (4), 155–169.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross, N. G. (1991). Models of the design process:
integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12 (4), 215–220.
Roberts, A. (2006). Cognitive styles and student progression in architectural design
education. Design Studies, Vol (27), 167–181.
Robbins, E., & Cullinan, E. (1994). Why Architects Draw. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Roozenburg, N. F. M. (1993). On the pattern of reasoning in innivative design.
Design Studies, 14 (1), 4–18.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field
Methods, Vol (15), 85–109.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Penguin Books.
Sachs, A. (1999). “Stuckness” in the design studio. Design Studies, 20, 195–209.
Said, I. (2007). Therapeutic effects of garden: preference of ill children towards
garden over ward in malaysian hospital environment. Jurnal Teknologi,
38(June), 55–68.
Said, I., Salleh, S. Z., Sarofil, M., Bakar, A., & Hospital, B. P. (2005). Garden as an
Environmental Intervention in the Restoration. In Conference on Sustainable
South East Asia, 11-13 April 2005, Malaysia (pp. 300–309).
Sahimi, N. ., & Said, I. (2012). Young Children Selections of the Physical Elements
in the Preschool Environment. In Asia Pacific International Conference on
Environment-Behaviour Studies, Grand Margherita Hotel, Kuching, Sarawak,
Malaysia, 7-9 December 2010 (Vol. 38, pp. 176–183).
Salama, A. (1995). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design
Studio. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: Tailored Text and Unlimited Potential
Publishing.
221
Salama, A. M. (2008). A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design
Education. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1),
100–128.
Salman, H. S. (2011). The Open Access Institutional Repository The impact of CAAD
on Design Methodology and Visual Thinking in Architectural Education. The
Robert Gordon University.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action.
London: Temple Smith.
Schon, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for
reflection in action. Journal of Architectural Education. University of Colorado
at Boulder.
Schon, D. A. (1992). Design as reflective conversation with the materials of a design
situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5 (1), 3–14.
Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in
Designing. Design Studies, 13 (2), 135–156.
Shari, Z., & Jaafar, M. F. . (2005). lntegration and implementation of sustainability
in Malaysian architectural education. In 40th Annual Conference of the
Architectural Science Association ANZAScA (pp. 239–246).
Shari, Z., & Jaafar, M. F. . (2006). Towards a Holistic Sustainable Architectural
Education in Malaysia. Alam Cipta, International Journal on Sustainable
Tropical Design Research and Practice, 1 (1), 57–65.
Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd Edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Simon H.A. (1978). On the forms of mental representation. In C. . Savage (Ed.),
Perception and Cognition: Issues in the Foundation of Psychology (pp. 3–18).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sjoestedt, V. (2010). Focusing on natural elements in the early design process , new
potentials for architects ? WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment,
129, 419–429.
Smith, Mark, K. (2008). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. The
Encylopedia of Informal Education. http://www.infed.org/mobi/howard-
gardner-multipleintelligences-and-education.
222
Stemler, S. (2001). An Overview of Content Analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 1–9. Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
Surat, M., Abdullah, N. A. G., Tahir, M. M., Nor, M. F. I. M., & Utaberta, N. (2011).
An Effective Teaching and Learning Approach for the Architectural Program
with Reference to the Framework of Educational Psychology. Kongres
Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran UKM, 2010, 18, 227–234.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996). What Architects See in Their Sketches : Implications for Design Tools. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 191–192). ACM.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their
design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18 (4), 385–403.
Suwa, M., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (1998). Analysis of cognitive processes of a
designer as the foundation for support tools. In J. S. Gero & F. Sudweeks (Eds.),
Artificial Intelligence in Design ’98 (pp. 229–247). Springer Netherlands.
Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of
design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies,
21(6), 539–567.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Seeing into sketches: regrouping parts encourages
new interpretations. In Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II (pp. 207–219). Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (2002). How do designers shift their focus of attention in
their own sketches ? In Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 241–254). Springer London.
Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2006). Unexpected discoveries: how designers
discover hidden features in sketches.
Tappe, H., & Habel, C. (1998). Verbalization of Dynamic Sketch Maps : Layers of Representation and their Interaction of Events : The Case of Drawing Events. In Cognitive Science Conference; Madision (pp. 1–7). Retrieved from
http://www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/WSV/sprachproduktion/CogSc98.ps
Tazilan, A. S. M., Lukman, N., Ibrahim, N., Darus, Z. M., & Usman, I. M. S. (2006).
Malaysia ecology sustainable toilet (M.E.S.T): New design for green and zero
energy public toilets. In International Conference On Construction Industry
2006. Padang, Sumatera Barat, Indonesia. (pp. 1–6).
Tobi, S. U. (2013). Research Methodological Cage: Understanding the Qualitative
Viewpoint. (pp. 11,24-31,33-36). Kuala Lumpur: Aras Publisher.
223
Tversky, B., & Lee, P. U. (1998). How space structures language. In Spatial
Cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing of
spatial knowledge In C. Freksa, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.) (pp. 157–175). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Tversky, B. (1999). What Does Drawing Reveal about Thinking? In J. S. G. & B. T.
(Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (pp. 93–101). Sydney, Australia:
Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
Tversky, B. (2002). What do Sketches say about Thinking? In Sketch Understanding
Workshop; AAAI Technical Report, Stanford University SS-02-08 (pp. 148–151).
Tversky, B., Suwa, M., Agrawala, M., Heiser, J., Stolte, C., Hanrahan, P., Lee, P.
(2003). Sketches for Design and Design of Sketches. In U. Lindermann (Ed.),
Human behaviour in design (p. 79). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Tversky, B., & Suwa, M. (2009). Thinking with sketches. Tools for Innovation, 1 (9),
75–85.
Tucker, R., & Reynolds, C. (2006). The Impact of Teaching Models , Group
Structures and Assessment Modes on Cooperative Learning in the Student
Design Studio. Journal for Education in the Built Environment (JEBE), 1 (2),
39–56.
Uluoglu, B. (2000). Design Knowledge Communicated in Studio Critiques. Design
Studies, 21, 33–58.
Ullman, S. (1997). High level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(5), 197.
Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Ani, A. I. C., & Surat, M. (2011). Reconstructing the
Idea of Critique Session in Architecture Studio. In Kongres Pengajaran dan
Pembelajaran UKM, 2010, Vol (18), 94–102.
Utaberta, N., & Hassanpour, B. (2012). Reconstructing a Framework for Criteria-
Based Assessment and Grading in Architecture Design Studio. In UKM
Teaching and Learning Congress 2011, Vol (60), 142–149.
Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Arsyad, M., & Che, A. I. (2013). A Comprehensive
Learning of Architecture Education : Understanding Critique Session as Learning Process and Criteria- Based Assessment in the Architecture Design
Studio. In 6th International Forum on Engineering Education (IFEE 2012), Vol
(102), 21–32.
Waks, L.J. (2001). Computer mediated experience and education. Education Theory,
51, 415–432.
224
Wilmot, A. (2016). Designing sampling strategies for qualitative social research:
with particular reference to the Office for National Statistics’ Qualitative
Respondent Register. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from http://www.ons.gov- 4
.uk/about/who-we-are/our-services/data-collectionmethodology/reports-and-
publications/designingsampling-strategies-.pdf
Wynn, D. C., Eckert, C. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2007). Modelling Iteration in
Engineering Design. International Conference on Engineering Design
ICED’07, 28th
-31st August, 1–12.
Yatiman, N. A., Aziz, N. F., & Said, I. (2012). Affordances of Homeschool Journey
in Rural Environment for Children ’ s Performances. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 68, 395–405.
Yin, Robert, K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fourth Eds).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zeeda, F. M. (2001). Curriculum: Implementation education for sustainable
development at University of Malaya. Journal of ULSF, 5 (1, December), 8.
Zeng, L., Proctor, W. R., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can Traditional Divergent
Thinking Tests Be Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real-World Creativity?
Creativity Research Journal, 23 (1), 24–37.
Zhang, H., Zherdeva, K., & Ekstrom, A. (2014). Different “routes” to a cognitive map : dissociable forms of spatial knowledge derived from route and cartographic map learning. Memory & Cognition, 42 (7), 5–6.
